And Then There Were Two

Listen Jane, I've been sitting here in my lawn chair for weeks watching that woman come and go on her motorcycle.  Not only does she have a motorcycle, but she lives alone in that 2-bedroom house.  Wouldn't it be great if we could get her out of there, so Buddy and Flo can move in?

What a great idea!  Then we could all be together again.  How do we do this, Joe?

Easy, we just tell her she's overhoused and that she has to go.

But is that legal?

We'll make it legal. We'll make a by-law forcing single people living in 2-bedroom units to move out.  We'll tell them that CMHC is making us do this.  

Oh boy, this is getting better! When can we get started?

Today.

Three months later:

Hey, Buddy, hey Flo, how do you like your new unit?  Come join the party.

 

RULES RULE

On February 16, 2013, the Ottawa Citizen published the below linked article about a subsidized member in Carillon Co-op who was overhoused and was facing eviction. 


http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Hugh+Adami+Sick+woman+fights+eviction+from+Carillon+housing/7973709/story.html 

Saying that part of this woman's rent (housing charge) was paid for by Ontario Disability Support Program strips the woman of her dignity.  The woman is disabled and receives ODSP.  The money is hers! 

A similar scheme was tried in our co-op by one of the current Directors of Carillon Co-op. As our co-op does not have 1-bedroom units, single, subsidized members living in 2-bedroom units were to apply to The Registry for a 1-bedroom unit or apartment.  The threat of forcing members to pay full market rent or be evicted had not yet been implemented.  

There is also a connection to our co-op on another level.  Our co-op was successfully sued for a basement leak with links to one of the current Directors of Carillon Co-op.

There are members living in Carillon Co-op who are directly involved in administering the co-op sector.  One of CHF's mission statements, in valuing their long standing members, has implemented Aging in Place policies.  It is inconceivable that this co-op, in particular, would create a by-law which would force an overhoused senior to find alternative subsidized housing within one year or pay full market.  The senior, being on a fixed income, cannot afford to pay full market rent (housing charge) and so gets evicted.  The senior is then homeless - in another words kicked out of the co-op.

The woman in Carillon Co-op is not a senior, but the reality is the same.  She should not be charged a surcharge of $50. per month to stay in her 2-bedroom unit, as there are no 1-bedroom units in her co-op to move into.

CMHC did not cut off this woman's subsidy - the co-op did. I know the people involved in this scheme and it was devised on purpose knowing full well that they would revert to their regular by-laws once their goal was accomplished. 

Bridlewood Acquisition

This is another article about the attempt by Bridlewood Co-op's Board of Directors to drive their co-op into bankruptcy and then buy up the units themselves at bargain basement prices. 

http://sxfreepress.com/?p=4772
 
The members of the Boards of Directors should have been charged with dereliction of duty and/or fraud in this matter.

The Co-operative Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C. 35, specifically outlaws this type of scheme:

171.2(1) A non-profit housing co-operative shall not distribute or pay any of its property to its members during its existence or on its dissolution.

Our By-laws, as I am sure theirs did too, clearly state what happens to a co-op once it is dissolved:

9.09  DISSOLUTION OF THE CO-OP

On dissolution of the Co-op, after payment of all its debts and liabilities, the remaining property of the Co-op shall be distributed or disposed of to or for charitable organizations whose activities are carried on solely within Canada. 

CHF and most certainly, CMHC, knew about the plan by the various Boards of Directors of Bridlewood Co-op to sell off and buy up their units since the mid 1990s.  Why didn't they do anything about it then?  Why was the co-op allowed to stop paying its mortgage, thereby forcing it into bankruptcy?  

This case is just so bizarre.

In The Grand Scheme of Things ...

  
http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2012/10/21/73280/

An Essex co-operative housing development that had been placed in receivership and faced the prospect of being sold off piecemeal, will be preserved following a court decision that ends years of court battles.

Bridlewood Co-operative Inc. consists of 131 detached homes located blocks away from the Essex Civic Centre. It was launched in 1975 by former CAW Local 444 president Charlie Brooks as an affordable place for working people to live.

But the co-op was placed in receivership in 2011 after its board stopped paying the $39,000 monthly mortgage payment for seven months. That was the end result after a lengthy fight dating back years where several dozen members repeatedly attempted to buy their homes at prices well below market value.

Homes were appraised at between 2005 and 2011 for between $122,000 and $127,000. The purchase prices proposed by the Bridlewood group ranged from $40,000 to $71,000, according to court documents.

Friday’s court decision followed the advice of the receiver who was entertaining offers on the units. The court ruled to sell them all to a single entity, a non-profit housing corporation set up by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, which had been fighting to preserve the project.

CHF Canada is pointing to the ruling as a landmark decision.

“The significance here is that 131 affordable housing units have been preserved for the people who need it across Windsor and Essex for generations to come,” said CHF spokesman and program manager Scott Jackson. “Instead of being sold off for a considerable discount, this allows the units to be repaired, restored and made available into the future.

“Nationally this sets an important legal precedent that ensures other housing developments can be preserved.”

He described the Bridlewood showdown as unique.

“We have never seen members try to do this with a co-op,” Jackson said. “If people ever try to do this again at another housing co-op, hopefully they will think twice.”

Many of the units have sat vacant, deteriorating badly during the lengthy fight. Restoration work will quickly get underway to bring the units back to life so they can again be occupied, he said.

“In just looking at the court ruling, it was noted there are over 2,000 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in the Windsor area,” Jackson said. “It’s going to be a challenge to preserve all of the housing because the maintenance and renovations were neglected for a considerable period of time.”

CHF's article:

http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pages2007/news_2012_08.asp 

NO RIGHTS NO REVIEW

CHFBC has, in the past, used a loophole in the Cooperative Association Act.  Instead of allowing for procedural fairness when evicting a member, co-ops could terminate their Occupancy Agreement, thereby ending their membership.  Once a membership has been terminated, the member no longer has any 'safeguards' under the Act.  CHFBC rewrote the Model Rules and recommended to B.C. co-ops that these become their standard rules.  In 2006 a judge upheld a co-op's ability to use this loophole to evict members.  The following link describes in detail the implications of the case Corbett v. Still Creek Housing Co-operative, 2006.  Please note, in particular,  Farris & Co.'s 2009's conclusion, outlined below:

Faced with an unfortunate Court of Appeal precedent, lawyers have few options to offer clients who fall prey to the effects of the Deemed Withdrawal Rule. The challenge is further
compounded by the fact that the possible legal remedies are complex, untested and procedurally challenging. The affordable housing crisis in British Columbia has made the consequences of this type of termination particularly devastating for cooperative members and their families. As an increasing number of members expelled under the Deemed Withdrawal Rule seek pro bono legal advice, it is our hope that the information in this paper will provide a starting point for lawyers willing to take up their cause as well as create awareness in the legal community of the legislative deficiencies that have permitted this scheme to operate. Only through increased awareness will the ultimate solution of legislative reform be possible.

http://www.farris.com/images/uploads/No_Rights_No_Review_-_Housing_Cooperatives.pdf

 On July 31, 2009, a co-writer of the above report wrote the following:

http://rightsandremedies.blogspot.ca/2009/07/advocate-article-no-rights-and-no.html

Haddock & Company, Lawyers in Vancouver,  published a Legal Alert on June 4, 2012, indicating that the Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2012, 'amended certain provisions within the Co-operative Association Act' overturning the ability of housing co-ops to  'undertake membership terminations by way of Occupancy Agreement termination'.  Please note, though, that '3.  Terminations for arrears are now treated differently under the Rules in that arrears require a majority vote of directors and there is no appeal to the members'.  Please see the following link:

static.ow.ly/docs/Coop%20Act%20Amendments_Ep4.pdf

CHFBC's Model Rule 5., 'Conduct detrimental to the Co-op' (e) includes, harming the reputation of the Co-op.  Now would I fall under that category, or could one say that co-ops themselves are responsible for their own reputations?

A Utopian Worker Collective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ok8nckLBEE0#


And not a whiff of discontent!

Why didn't CHFBC and CMHC inspectors do their jobs to prevent leaky roof co-ops to be built in the first place?

There's a connection to our co-op in the above video.  All in the family they say.